This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Can someone explain the hardware of PS4 and X1?

#1Cowboy082288Posted 12/20/2013 7:36:30 PM
I know what I'm competent to talk about and what I'm not. I feel competent in discussing software, development environments ect. I know a couple different programming languages and have developed in a couple different SDKs.

Where I feel incompetent is hardware. I don't comment in threads where people are arguing about eSRAM and GDDR5, or debating cpu benchmarks. I mean sure I know how to build a PC for the most part and currently use a PC I put together.

This is where I run into my problem. I look at the specs of these consoles and think "well I could go to newegg and put basically the same thing together". Sure I may ultimately spend a little more money doing so but not much.

Soooooo here is my question, and it's an honest question, I'm not trying to make any kind of point with this. Why do these consoles cost so much in R&D????? I mean they spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing these things. What is that all about? I know the people at Sony and MS are not stupid, they both have some of the best people in the business working for them.

I guess I'm asking why is it so worth it to them in R&D? Why not just basic off the shelf components?

I tried this on the X1 board and it turned to crap, I'm hoping that someone who knows will reply here.

Sry this is not really PC related but well it kind of is.
---
PSN/XBL/Steam/iOS - cowboyoni
#2ATARIJAWAPosted 12/20/2013 7:48:08 PM(edited)
Both consoles use an APU consisting of an AMD 8 core Jaguar Temash CPU (their tablet cpu model) paired with a modified 7970m laptop gpu that has been downclocked and had some cores disabled. The way the PS4 is configured/modified results in a 20-30% more powerful system than the xbox 1. This is a result of the Ram differences and the modifications to the GPU. Both consoles would be on the low end of a mid-range gaming PC. You can build an equivalent gaming PC or one that slightly beats it for $500.00 - $600.00 including OS (tower only obviously) as has been proven many times.
---
Gamefaqs game rating system : 10 = Best Game Ever. 8-9. Crushing dissapointment. Below 8 :Total Garbage. This is getting ridiculous. people agreeing so far 108
#3AsellusPosted 12/20/2013 7:50:43 PM
Various reasons. Off-the-shelf components might not really suit what you're looking for in a system. The Jaguar apu used in both systems is, originally, a low-wattage chip meant for notebooks and tablets. Both Microsoft and Sony customized it to better suit their needs (ie adding a lot more gpu compute units). Microsoft added their eSRAM cache to offset using slower system memory to it similar to what they did with the 360 as well while Sony went with faster memory and had more room for more compute units as a result.

Also one particular reason for not using off-the-shelf components is that you want to be able to prevent third-parties from being able to sell clones of your system. Additionally you want to be able to prevent people from running unauthorized software on your system so you have some hardware dedicated to making sure that's not the case and you probably don't want people to know quite how it works.
#4g7g7g7g7Posted 12/20/2013 7:58:41 PM
Its a trap!

The X1 and PS4 and pretty much the exact same thing....

First important thing is, Unified Architecture. (Integrated graphics as we used to call it).

Well they both use the same Processor(s) and the same Graphics cores. Its actually 2 AMD A-10 4-core Jaguar chips, the exact same silicon, but tuned to use far less power but they only seem to work around 2Ghz but thats because AMD has a terrible TPD (thermal design power) and if it ran at laptop or desktop heat it would probably cook itself to death.

So its two laptop CPU's underclocked and bolted together, add a few of GCN cores from the 79** series AMD cards in two flavours, some (X1) or more (PS4). Thats really all there is to say about the GPU side of things.

Lastly there is some RAM, one has more bandwidth the other has a fast 32MB pipeline which needs more CPU power to process tasking making itself essentially useless.
---
You never see people quoting each other in sigs anymore. - Adam Laz
#5Cowboy082288(Topic Creator)Posted 12/20/2013 8:12:30 PM
Asellus posted...
Various reasons. Off-the-shelf components might not really suit what you're looking for in a system. The Jaguar apu used in both systems is, originally, a low-wattage chip meant for notebooks and tablets. Both Microsoft and Sony customized it to better suit their needs (ie adding a lot more gpu compute units). Microsoft added their eSRAM cache to offset using slower system memory to it similar to what they did with the 360 as well while Sony went with faster memory and had more room for more compute units as a result.

Also one particular reason for not using off-the-shelf components is that you want to be able to prevent third-parties from being able to sell clones of your system. Additionally you want to be able to prevent people from running unauthorized software on your system so you have some hardware dedicated to making sure that's not the case and you probably don't want people to know quite how it works.


But that all cost hundreds of millions of dollars? I seem to recall the PS3 cost 1 billion in R&D ( I could be wrong, don't really remember).

I don't know, it's just the cost of building these consoles seems really high.
---
PSN/XBL/Steam/iOS - cowboyoni
#6ATARIJAWAPosted 12/20/2013 8:17:39 PM
Cowboy082288 posted...
Asellus posted...
Various reasons. Off-the-shelf components might not really suit what you're looking for in a system. The Jaguar apu used in both systems is, originally, a low-wattage chip meant for notebooks and tablets. Both Microsoft and Sony customized it to better suit their needs (ie adding a lot more gpu compute units). Microsoft added their eSRAM cache to offset using slower system memory to it similar to what they did with the 360 as well while Sony went with faster memory and had more room for more compute units as a result.

Also one particular reason for not using off-the-shelf components is that you want to be able to prevent third-parties from being able to sell clones of your system. Additionally you want to be able to prevent people from running unauthorized software on your system so you have some hardware dedicated to making sure that's not the case and you probably don't want people to know quite how it works.


But that all cost hundreds of millions of dollars? I seem to recall the PS3 cost 1 billion in R&D ( I could be wrong, don't really remember).

I don't know, it's just the cost of building these consoles seems really high.


That includes marketing all over the globe as well as the cost of development. That's all built into the cost of the console.
---
Gamefaqs game rating system : 10 = Best Game Ever. 8-9. Crushing dissapointment. Below 8 :Total Garbage. This is getting ridiculous. people agreeing so far 108
#7Cowboy082288(Topic Creator)Posted 12/20/2013 8:23:51 PM
ATARIJAWA posted...
Cowboy082288 posted...
Asellus posted...
Various reasons. Off-the-shelf components might not really suit what you're looking for in a system. The Jaguar apu used in both systems is, originally, a low-wattage chip meant for notebooks and tablets. Both Microsoft and Sony customized it to better suit their needs (ie adding a lot more gpu compute units). Microsoft added their eSRAM cache to offset using slower system memory to it similar to what they did with the 360 as well while Sony went with faster memory and had more room for more compute units as a result.

Also one particular reason for not using off-the-shelf components is that you want to be able to prevent third-parties from being able to sell clones of your system. Additionally you want to be able to prevent people from running unauthorized software on your system so you have some hardware dedicated to making sure that's not the case and you probably don't want people to know quite how it works.


But that all cost hundreds of millions of dollars? I seem to recall the PS3 cost 1 billion in R&D ( I could be wrong, don't really remember).

I don't know, it's just the cost of building these consoles seems really high.


That includes marketing all over the globe as well as the cost of development. That's all built into the cost of the console.


I think the R&D is separate from marketing. Maybe it is all in the OS I don't know.
---
PSN/XBL/Steam/iOS - cowboyoni
#8AsellusPosted 12/20/2013 9:24:25 PM
But that all cost hundreds of millions of dollars? I seem to recall the PS3 cost 1 billion in R&D ( I could be wrong, don't really remember).

There was more original hardware in the last generation of consoles. The ps3 included Cell (of which Sony was a primary funder of its development) and xd-ram.